Let's forget MLB records before 1901

[Appling]

When did we start to care about baseball records set prior to 1901?

I first became interested in baseball -- including "current MLB stats" and "old records" -- in 1946 or 1947. Early on, I "learned" that the best Batting Average for a full season was Hornsby's .424 in 1924, that Ty Cobb had the record for stolen bases with his 96 in 1915, and that the most wins by a pitcher in a season were 41 by Chesbro in 1904 and 40 by Ed Walsh in 1908.
I also memorized all the .400 hitting seasons -- by Cobb, Sisler, Joe Jackson, Heilman, Hornsby, Terry -- and Ted Williams. (But with no attention to any stats for seasons before 1901.)

At that time we were vaguely aware that baseball had been played before 1900 but it wasn't really the same game. Record books at that time usually ignored seasons before 1901. I think the adults of that day were close enough to the pre-1900 game to realize it wasn't really the same game. A high batting average prior to 1900 was explained by different rules (one year giving credit for every walk to be scored as a "hit") High HR totals were explained by little-league diminsions to the fences; pitchers records were set by throwing underhand from a reduced distance; and fielders using mitts about the size of my driving gloves.

24 "major league" pitchers are credited 42 or more wins in a single season -- and all 24 were in seasons before 1900. Does anyone pretend that those are the 24 top pitching seasons of all time?

So what has changed? Why has it become necessary to consider archaic records from the "golden age" in all our threads here?

I would prefer to continue my personal focus on 1901 and later stats. If someone wants to discuss something prior to 1900, fine, but then stick just to that era in that thread. Don't try to mix and compare stats from the 1870's and 1880's with any records set after 1901, and pretend it is anything like the same game.

Does anyone here agree with me?

[Brian McKenna]

Does anyone here agree with me?

absolutely not

[Williamsburg2599]

From Baseball-Alamanac.com
1877 Canvas bases 15 inches square were introduced.

Home plate was placed in the angle formed by the intersection of the first and third base lines.
The hitter was exempted from a time at bat if he walked.

1879 Player reserve clause was for the first time put into a contract.
The number of "called balls" became 9 and all balls were either strikes, balls or fouls.
The pitcher had to face a batsman before pitching to him.
A staff of umpires was first introduced.

1880 Base on balls was reduced to 8 "called balls."
The base runner was out if hit by a batted ball.
The catcher had to catch the pitch on the fly in order to register and out on a third strike.

1883 The "foul bound catch" was abolished and the pitcher could deliver a ball from above his waist.

1884 All restrictions on the delivery of a pitcher were removed.
Six "called balls" became a base on balls.
Championships were to be decided on a percentage basis.

1885 One portion of the bat could be flat (one side).
Home base could be made of marble or whitened rubber.
Chest protectors worn by catchers and umpires came into use.

1887 The pitcher's box was reduced to 4 feet by 5 1/2 feet.
Calling for high and low pitches was abolished.
Five balls became a base on balls.
Four "called strikes" were adopted for this season only.
Bases on balls were recorded as hits for this season only.
The batter was awarded first base when hit by a pitch.
Home plate was to be made of rubber only - dropping the marble type and was to be 12 inches square.
Coaches were recognized by the rules for the first time ever.

1888 Player reserve clause was written into the contracts of minor leaguers for the first time.
The base on balls exemption from a time at bat was restored.
A batsman was credited with a base hit when a runner was hit by his batted ball.

1889 Four balls became a base on balls.
A sacrifice bunt was statistically recognized.

1891 Substitutions were permitted at any point in the game.
Large padded mitts were allowed for catchers.

1893 Pitching distance increased from 50 feet to 60 feet 6 inches.
The pitching box was eliminated and a rubber slab 12 inches by 4 inches was substituted.
The pitcher was required to place his rear foot against the slab.
The rule exempting a batter from a time at bat on a sacrifice was instituted.
The rule allowing a flat side to a bat was rescinded and the requirement that the bat be round and wholly of hard wood was substituted.

1894 Foul bunts were classified as strikes.

1895 Pitching slab was enlarged to 24 inches by 6 inches.
Bats were permitted to be 2 3/4 inches in diameter and not to exceed 42 inches.
Infield-fly rule was adopted.
A held foul tip was classified as a strike.

1901 Catchers were compelled to remain continuously under the bat.
bkmckenna-C'mon I may be a newbie, but you no youll always get ripped by someone if you dont try to back yourself up
Appling-I can see where your coming from, but there have been many big changes in rules since then too, such as the DH rule and the diffrent lengths of the schedule, so should we discount all those records too? some of the rule changes were such as



also from baseball-almanac.com-1903 Foul strike rule was adopted by the American League.

1904 Height of the mound was limited to 15 inches higher than the level of the baselines.

1908 Pitchers were prohibited from soiling a new ball.
Shinguards were reintroduced.
The sacrifice fly rule was adopted.

1910 The cork center was added to the official baseball.

1917 Earned-run statistics and definitions were added to the rules.

1920 All freak deliveries, including the spitball, were outlawed.
The failure of a preceding runner to touch a base would not affect the status of a succeeding runner.
The batter was given credit for a home run in the last of the ninth inning if the winning run was on base when the ball was hit out of the field.
The number of runs batted in were to be included in the official score.
Frivolous ninth-inning uncontested steals in one-sided games were discarded.

1925 Pitcher was allowed to use a resin bag.
The minimum home-run distance was set at 250 feet.

1931 Sacrifice fly rule was brought back, this time with a man scoring after the catch only.
Defensive interference was changed from an offense solely by a catcher to one by a fielder as well.
No fielder could take a position in line with a batter's vision with the deliberate intent to in any way distract the batter.
Regulations referring to a batter contacting his own ball were clarified as was the area of bases awarded a batter when a defensive player threw his glove at a batted or thrown ball or in the case of spectator interference.

1953 Players were to remove their gloves from the field (in 1954) when batting and no equipment was to show on the field at any time.

1959 Regulations were set up for minimum boundaries for all new parks, 325-400-325 feet.

1968 The anti-spitball rule was rewritten and tightened up because of the wave of moistened pitches that floated plateward the prior season.

1969 The pitcher's mound was dropped five inches.
The strike zone was shrunken to the area from the armpits to the top of the batter's knees.
The save rule was added to the official rules for the first time.

1971 All major-league players were ordered to wear protective helmets.

1973 The rule on glove size and color was minutely outlined for standardization.
The American League began using designated hitter for pitchers on an experimental basis.

1974 The save rule was rewritten.
Minimum standards for individual championships were outlined.

1975 The ball was permitted to be covered with cowhide because of the shortage of horses.
Suspension for three days became mandatory if batter were to hit a fair ball with a filled, doctored or flat-surfaced bat.
The save rule was changed again.
see what I mean? baseball was and still is an everchanging sport.

[TonyK]

Why even begin with 1901? How about only tracking records starting with Jackie Robinson's rookie season of 1947? Records before that year shouldn't count either since they were all set by white players. Why not 1961, since that was the year expansion occurred? Why not exclude all records from the last ten years because some were assisted by performance enhancing drugs? Why don't we begin with the 1893 season since that was the first year the pitching distance was 60' 6"?

That is like teaching US History beginning with the year 1776 since that was the year we declared our independence from England.

Some of our greatest baseball players of all-time had the misfortune to play in the major leagues before 1901. Let's erase their names and stats as well as their records. They shouldn't be accorded the same status as 20th Century ballplayers despite what Spalding and Reach Guides tell us.

I understand your concern that some stats are elevated due to the nature of the ballpark or the era. Our present situation of inflated power numbers should tell us something about the meaning of stats throughout baseball history.

[Blackout]

if it was possible to strike out 500 guys in 1884, then the pitcher deserves credit for it in the record books

[Blackout]

At that time we were vaguely aware that baseball had been played before 1900 but it wasn't really the same game. Record books at that time usually ignored seasons before 1901. I think the adults of that day were close enough to the pre-1900 game to realize it wasn't really the same game. A high batting average prior to 1900 was explained by different rules (one year giving credit for every walk to be scored as a "hit") High HR totals were explained by little-league diminsions to the fences; pitchers records were set by throwing underhand from a reduced distance; and fielders using mitts about the size of my driving gloves.


so Honus Wagner was playing a different game for the first 3 years of his career?

[Imapotato]

so Honus Wagner was playing a different game for the first 3 years of his career?


Yes, yes he was

He could foul off 15 pitches and have 0 strikes on him

That's a big difference

and I agree with Appling

I count the beginning of the last 'modern' rule of fouls are strikes to 1993 as the single season baseball record book

All changes during that time were insignificant in terms of vastly changing overall play of the game

1994 of course was when executives and owners thought most of for fools and wound the ball 1.5 times tighter (Proven do a google search for the pyshics test on pre and post 1994 balls) and the half a strike zone, both of which made Barry Bonds from a cheaper Willie Mays to a better Babe Ruth

To me Chesbro has 41 wins, a record
Nolan Ryan is the single season K holder

As for career records

That is a bit harder, for pitching, when the mound was pushed back seems adequete and then when walks were not counted as hits...and steals were not advancing a base

So guys like Cy Young still stay the wins leader, yet Billy Hamilton and John McGraw get lowered in SB and OBP due alot of rule advantages for hitters

[julusnc]

Records are records.I believe baseball is baseball.

The only fable I wish would be striken from the history of baseball is the man known as Doubleday.

[Blackout]

so if the 1903 foul-ball cutoff is where "real baseball" starts, then Ed Delahanty only had one season of his entire career in this era.

[Brian McKenna]

and the big manager in the sky created baseball...in 1700? 1800? 1876? 1893? 1900? 1901? 1903? 1911? 1919? 1920? 1930? 1941? 1947? 1959? 1961? 1973? 1983? 1994? 2006? or perhaps they year i was born?

which is it? i guess each wants to make his own pick!

[RogersMaris]

absolutely not

Why not? Please explain.

[Imapotato]

so if the 1903 foul-ball cutoff is where "real baseball" starts, then Ed Delahanty only had one season of his entire career in this era.


My perogative, but looking at your signature and seeing a P that plays 60 games and 60 IP...I don't you and I will see eye to eye on baseball


I consider all relievers vastly overrated and Riveria is about the worst, that cut fastball couldn't make it 2 times through a batting order...but 3-5 hitters, it works

[Blackout]

My perogative, but looking at your signature and seeing a P that plays 60 games and 60 IP...I don't you and I will see eye to eye on baseball


I consider all relievers vastly overrated and Riveria is about the worst, that cut fastball couldn't make it 2 times through a batting order...but 3-5 hitters, it works


when your teams starters arm runs out and its a playoff game, who do you want in the 9th inning, a fresh Mariano Rivera with a 93 mph cutter or a worn out starter?

[Brian McKenna]

Understanding 19th Century Baseball Statistics

Many of the common statistics that we hold dearly in quantifying, thus qualifying, the value of each baseball player or team were developed in the 1800s. Some 19th century achievements are just unfathomable now. How could Hoss Radbourn win 59 games in 1884? Did Tip O’Neill really hit .485 in 1887? We cannot look at the past with a 21st century eye.

Baseball during the 19th century was fundamentally different, statistic-wise, than today. Significant rule changes were made virtually every year especially in the relationship of the batter to the pitcher. It wasn’t until 1889 that the current ball-strike count was formalized. The batter’s box was moved from 45’ to 50’ in 1881 and then eliminated altogether for a rubber plate and lengthened to the current 60’6” distance in 1893. Sidearm pitching wasn’t permitted until 1883 and the now familiar overhand delivery a year later. Batters could call for high or low pitches up until 1887. A cursory review of the numbers shows some significant innings being racked up by pitchers. This, in part, led to some very showy stats.

All seemingly minor calculations took time to formally stabilize like errors, foul balls, stolen bases, hit by pitch, ground rule doubles and sacrifice bunts to name a few. Freely substituting players wasn’t legal until 1891. The physical bat and ball themselves underwent an evolutionary process that continues today. It wasn’t until 1901 that the National League counted fouls as strikes.

Once the ball was hit the game looked remarkably similar to sandlot play. Errors were aplenty, in part, because no one wore gloves, or at least very crude ones, and the fields were far less kept than your local elementary school today. Most people today would have a hard time just playing catch with glove models from Joe DiMaggio’s era and especially earlier.

The quality of play on major league diamonds during the 19th century is suspect, as well. For one, major league baseball was only played in the East. Surely, many top-flight ballplayers went “undiscovered” by officially listed major league franchises. We know for a fact that all African-Americans did. The level of play in the Union Association is highly questionable, not to mention the National League and American Association during parts of their tenure, especially during the exodus of talent to the Players League in 1890.

Take the case of the Brooklyn Bridegrooms for example. They won the American Association flag in 1889 but after a dispute with league directors jumped, along with Cincinnati, to the National League. Since Brooklyn was paying the highest salaries in the game, they didn’t lose any regulars to the Players League in 1890. On the other hand all other National league clubs were decimated by the defections to the upstart league. Even the American Association lost quite a few stars. As a result, the transplanted Bridegrooms won the National League pennant by six games.

Moreover, it took some time to engrave the structure by which increasing levels of talent were efficiently funneled to the top (farm system). Sometimes a team, en masse, would be added to a major league that had just spent the previous year in the minors or as an independent club or in another major league for that matter. Some teams, like the 1883 National League Philadelphia Phillies, were little more than pickup teams with a few major-league caliber players.

Two teams from the Union Association transferred into the National League: the 1885 St. Louis Maroons and 1886 Washington Senators. No less than eight American Association clubs entered the National League, including the present-day Pirates, Dodgers, Reds and Cardinals.

[Brian McKenna]

The following lists the vast number of franchise shifts that took place in the National League during its first 25 years before it settled itself with the coming of the American League:

------IN--------------------------------------------OUT
1876
Chicago
St. Louis
Harford
Boston
Louisville
New York
Philadelphia
Cincinnati
1877-------------------------------------------------New York
------------------------------------------------------Philadelphia
1878
Providence
Milwaukee
Indianapolis
------------------------------------------------------Harford
------------------------------------------------------St. Louis
------------------------------------------------------Louisville
1879
Buffalo
Milwaukee
Syracuse
Troy
Cleveland
------------------------------------------------------Indianapolis
1880
Worcester
------------------------------------------------------Syracuse
1881
Detroit
------------------------------------------------------Cincinnati
1883
New York
Philadelphia
------------------------------------------------------Worcester
------------------------------------------------------Troy
1885
St. Louis
------------------------------------------------------Cleveland
1886
Kansas City
Washington
------------------------------------------------------Providence
------------------------------------------------------Buffalo
1887
Pittsburgh
Indianapolis
------------------------------------------------------St. Louis
------------------------------------------------------Kansas City
1889
Cleveland
------------------------------------------------------Detroit
1890
Brooklyn
Cincinnati
------------------------------------------------------Indianapolis
------------------------------------------------------Washington
1892
Baltimore
St. Louis
Washington
Louisville

1900------------------------------------------------Baltimore
------------------------------------------------------Louisville
------------------------------------------------------Washington
------------------------------------------------------Cleveland.

[wamby]

Does anyone here agree with me?

I do. I have very little interest in 19th century baseball. From what I've read about it, I think I would hated attending games in that era.

[Imapotato]

when your teams starters arm runs out and its a playoff game, who do you want in the 9th inning, a fresh Mariano Rivera with a 93 mph cutter or a worn out starter?


very true, touche

But I also see alot of new closers each year....you don't see that with SP

If Rivera was on the Royals, would he still be around, as a closer of a MR?

If Mitch Williams came up in the Yankee system, would #99 be a HOFer?

[TonyK]

wamby: You mean to tell us that you wouldn't have enjoyed drinking and gambling, calling the players foul names, insulting the umpire, and singing cheers for your team?

That was on a dull day.

Imagine rushing down from the stands with your buddies to try and get a lick in against the lone umpire whose decision just cost you a week's pay. Or watching a manager and the umpire go head to toe exchanging punches. Then there were the infielders giving base runners hip checks so they wouldn't score a run.

If that still doesn't interest you then picture the pitcher taking a running start and firing the ball right at the batter's head in a motion similar to our softball pitchers of today. Sometimes the ball would hook across for a strike, but other times it would hit the batter's skull and knock him unconscious.

You also could watch great barehanded defensive plays made by skilled players not wearing gloves. We really don't know what is was like to watch a game back then. My guess is we would be impressed, puzzled, surprised, and entertained.

[wamby]

wamby: You mean to tell us that you wouldn't have enjoyed drinking and gambling, calling the players foul names, insulting the umpire, and singing cheers for your team?

That was on a dull day.

Imagine rushing down from the stands with your buddies to try and get a lick in against the lone umpire whose decision just cost you a week's pay. Or watching a manager and the umpire go head to toe exchanging punches. Then there were the infielders giving base runners hip checks so they wouldn't score a run.

If that still doesn't interest you then picture the pitcher taking a running start and firing the ball right at the batter's head in a motion similar to our softball pitchers of today. Sometimes the ball would hook across for a strike, but other times it would hit the batter's skull and knock him unconscious.

You also could watch great barehanded defensive plays made by skilled players not wearing gloves. We really don't know what is was like to watch a game back then. My guess is we would be impressed, puzzled, surprised, and entertained.

I also wouldn't have enjoyed being shoehorned into a firetrap of a ballpark either or having to watch from the field seeing all those outfield flys becoming ground-rule singles. I've never been much for drinking at the ballpark. Truthfully, I don't find any of those things you mentioned to be at all appealing. If I wanted that kind of experience I would have gone to a political rally or a union march.

I probably wouldn't have been able to get to any games anyway. If I lived in Cleveland in the 19th century and been a laborer I would been off to see games only on Decoration Day and the 4th of July.

[Brian McKenna]

let's just wipe the 19th century from the history books - takes too much effort to figure out????

[TonyK]

I also wouldn't have enjoyed being shoehorned into a firetrap of a ballpark either or having to watch from the field seeing all those outfield flys becoming ground-rule singles. I've never been much for drinking at the ballpark. Truthfully, I don't find any of those things you mentioned to be at all appealing. If I wanted that kind of experience I would have gone to a political rally or a union march.

I probably wouldn't have been able to get to any games anyway. If I lived in Cleveland in the 19th century and been a laborer I would been off to see games only on Decoration Day and the 4th of July.

Many factories were encouraged to release their workers early at 3 pm or 3:30 pm to attend weekday games. Saturday and Sunday games were well attended. But think of the day your team is out of players and they ask you to come down from the stands to play right field for them. Would you?

I got an idea for a game that would take us back to the 19th Century. What if two ML teams played using rules from a particular year in the 1800's and their fielders did not wear gloves? How good would Derek Jeter or Jim Edmunds be catching a hard line drive or grounder barehanded? How far could Bonds or Ortiz hit a dead ball using an old wooden bat weighing 38 ounces or more? Watching the 1B and C catching hard throws would be worth the admission price to me.

[TonyK]

let's just wipe the 19th century from the history books - takes too much effort to figure out????

Done! Abner Doubleday is now credited with founding major league baseball in April of 1901. The Cy Young Award has been renamed the Pedro Award ;-)

[Appling]

Done! Abner Doubleday is now credited with founding major league baseball in April of 1901. The Cy Young Award has been renamed the Pedro Award ;-)
You sound almost cynical when you say this.

Certainly I can't claim that the 19th Century of Baseball History didn't happen -- but when looking at individual records today, they should be treated more as a footnote, not as relevant today.

In the first 50 years or so of the 20th Century, most annual records were listed only for the "modern era". People who watched MLB in the 1920's or 1930's looked on records set by Ty Cobb (96 SB) or Rogers Hornsby (.424 BA)or Ed Walsh and Jack Chesbro (40 wins) as more important than BA records or pitching records set before 1900. They knew the pre-1900 records were of dubious merit.

I do agree that career records (for players whose careers spanned both centuries) should be respected in full. This is the way my old record books handled it: season records are listed only after 1900, but career totals include everything.

[Victory Faust]

I think the pre-1900 records should stand, and, when we judge those feats, we should keep in mind the mitigating circumstances -- just as we do when we look at records set in weird years like 1930 and 1968.

And to those of you who say you wouldn't want to attend a game from the 1800s, I say: HUH????

I would give my eyeteeth to be able to attend one of those old St. Louis Browns games in the American Association, the ol' Beer and Whiskey League; or a Baltimore Orioles game from the 1890s. It must have been some experience!

[wamby]

Many factories were encouraged to release their workers early at 3 pm or 3:30 pm to attend weekday games. Saturday and Sunday games were well attended. But think of the day your team is out of players and they ask you to come down from the stands to play right field for them. Would you?



I don't know if this true or not but if I were coming off a 10 or 12 hour factory shift I don't think I'd be all that interested in going to the ballpark.

From what I've read, 19th century baseball teams, especially the National League, weren't interested in drawing the lower working classes to the ball since they were seen as the most rowdy element in society and the game had enough of a problem with rowdyism as it was. This is a major reasomn why the NL opposed Sunday baseball for as long as it did. I think baseball was able to weather the 1890s depression pretty easily because it didn't cater to the people who were affected the worst by that depression.

[TonyK]

I think the pre-1900 records should stand, and, when we judge those feats, we should keep in mind the mitigating circumstances -- just as we do when we look at records set in weird years like 1930 and 1968.

And to those of you who say you wouldn't want to attend a game from the 1800s, I say: HUH????

I would give my eyeteeth to be able to attend one of those old St. Louis Browns games in the American Association, the ol' Beer and Whiskey League; or a Baltimore Orioles game from the 1890s. It must have been some experience!

Victory: I'll be sitting there with you the day they figure out how to put us back into that era. The more I read about events occurring in minor league and major league games the more I sense the players were better than we think, and the fans knew a lot more than many fans do today.

Nobody feels it would be interesting to see how two ML teams could do without gloves and swinging the big heavy bats?

[Ubiquitous]

I count the beginning of the last 'modern' rule of fouls are strikes to 1993 as the single season baseball record book

All changes during that time were insignificant in terms of vastly changing overall play of the game

1994 of course was when executives and owners thought most of for fools and wound the ball 1.5 times tighter (Proven do a google search for the pyshics test on pre and post 1994 balls) and the half a strike zone, both of which made Barry Bonds from a cheaper Willie Mays to a better Babe Ruth



So all the other times they changed the ball should be ignored?

AS for the tests are you talking about the one that found artificial wool fibers in the core? as for the liveliness independent researchers found that the bounce of the ball was within range of what baseball's rules are.
The Coefficient of Restitution is a measure of how resilient the ball is - how bouncy it is. An official major league ball is supposed to have a COR between .514 and .578. If a batter can hit the ball 400 feet at the low end of the scale, the same batter should be able to hit the ball 49 feet farther at the top end of the scale.
The random sample of baseballs Sherwood tested averaged .55, toward the upper end of allowably “bouncy.” After reviewing the university’s findings, Major League Baseball said the tests verified that this year’s baseballs were in line with its specifications.


Now that doesn't mean they are using the same ball they did in 1950 but whatever they are using they are using because they want too.